Journal of Further and Higher Education

ISSN: 0309-877X (Print) 1469-9486 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20

Performing PowerPoint lectures: examining the

extent of slide-text integration into lecturers’
spoken expositions

Madeline J. Hallewell & Charles Crook

To cite this article: Madeline J. Hallewell & Charles Crook (2019): Performing PowerPoint lectures:
examining the extent of slide-text integration into lecturers’ spoken expositions, Journal of Further
and Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1579895

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1579895

Published online: 11 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 156

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjfh20
JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1579895

Performing PowerPoint lectures: examining the extent of slide-

text integration into lecturers’ spoken expositions
Madeline J. Hallewell and Charles Crook
Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The PowerPoint-assisted lecture (slide-lecture) is a common lecturing Received 20 September 2018
approach in higher education, in spite of much criticism of its use. Its popu- Accepted 3 February 2019
larity is facilitated by its affordances for multimodal instructional design, e.g. KEYWORDS
text with images and speech. Little is known about the integration of different slide-lectures;
semiotic modalities within the instructional communication practices of slide- lecture–slide orchestration;
lectures nor the learning conditions that they create. Given that text mixed-methods; PowerPoint
bulletpoints are ubiquitous in slide-lectures, and may impose linearity into pedagogy; multimodal
instructional communications, this study explores the extent to which lectur- communication
ing speech is systematically coordinated with slide-text. Eleven slide-lectures
given in psychology departments across the UK were recorded and tran-
scribed. Patterns of semantic matches between speech and slide-text were
analysed to produce similarity scores for each lecturer. Lectures were scored
using an integration scoring system of 0–1, with 1 indicating a perfect match
of speech and slide-text. There was significant departure from a systematic
voicing of the slide text (i.e. reading off the slides). Two characteristic speech–
slide relationship styles were identified. The ‘referent’ style is one in which the
slide is an object of reference for the lecturer to comment on and the
‘scaffolding’ style is one in which the slide-text is blended into the spoken
narrative. Consequences of the lecturer’s coordination with presentational
slides are discussed in terms of the learning environment it might produce. It
is suggested that whichever relationship a lecturer has with their slide-text,
students might benefit from the integration being consistent.

Abbreviations: DA: Discourse Analysis; SPP: Secondary Pointing

Procedures; ANOVA: Analysis of Variance

Introduction
The slide-lecture is defined as a lecture, or section of a lecture, in which a large electronic display
shows a sequence of discrete visual screens (text, multimedia or a combination of both) whilst the
lecturer speaks. Importantly, owing to the affordances of slide software (e.g. PowerPoint, Prezi,
Keynote), slide-lectures have the potential to be multimodal performances in which voice is
coordinated with visual information. Although there are many other activities that could be carried
out within a lecture, and lectures certainly do not all follow the slide-lecture format, under
discussion here are the lectures (or sections of lectures) in which slides appear on the screen to
support the lecturer’s presentation.
The efficiency with which multimedia encounters in general can be processed is widely dis-
cussed (e.g. Ainsworth 2006; Jewitt 2009; Pozzer-Ardenghi 2007; Smith-Shank 2010). In multimedia/
multimodal learning and instruction, the incorporation of information presented in different

CONTACT Madeline J. Hallewell m.hallewell@nottingham.ac.uk

© 2019 UCU
2 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

modalities is generally helpful – provided there is a clear instructional purpose for each modality
and the information conveyed by each is integrated for efficient cognitive processing (e.g. Mayer
2001). However, little of the literature associated with multimedia/multimodal learning and instruc-
tion relates specifically to the live slide-lecture as a particular form of such pedagogy. The practices
of integrating its modes of spoken and visualised communication are poorly understood.
A live lecture can be a semiotically-rich occasion but its most prominent communicative modes
are the lecturer’s speech and the visual representations displayed on screens. Hallewell and
Lackovic (2017) have discussed the semiotic potential of photographs in lecture slides, concluding
that it is important that speech and photographic modalities are integrated and photographs are
interrogated to lead to a more nuanced and personally meaningful understanding of lecture
content. Yet, in their study, photograph usage was very low compared to the use of text on slides.
The present study extends this work to address practices of managing visible text within slides.
Of the many representational forms available (images, videos, animations, etc.), the most common
modality to appear in slideshows is text (Gabriel 2008). There is little established protocol regarding how
slide-text functions as part of the slide-lecture performance, yet there is much criticism of the ‘typical’ way
in which such ‘speaking-about-the-slide’ is achieved. For instance, the PowerPoint ‘paradigm’ of teaching
results in the lecturer using their slides as a reduced script, giving ‘boring’ presentations (Adams 2006;
Knight 2015; Maxwell 2007; Nowak, Speakman, and Sayers 2016) of information that may already have
been encountered via lecture material posted on a course virtual learning environment (Gourlay 2012).
Seemingly, slides are understood as a text-based outline of the lecture performance, dictating the topics
which the lecturer will address and which students should study further. The subsequent restriction that
slides place on lecture progression is blamed for student disengagement, which may result in skipping
classes, daydreaming, playing with phones, etc. (Mann and Robinson 2009). Moreover, this ‘lecture-
outline’ model of slide-lectures might converge on the limiting case of the lecturer who reads slide-text
verbatim, a practice that can surely produce ‘dull’ lectures (Knight 2015; Young 2004) and that condemns
the lecturer to the role of spokesperson for the slide.
A tension clearly exists within lecturing practice whereby slide-lectures are ubiquitous and are
likely to remain so for some time, yet there is a common understanding that their typical
performance might negatively influence lecture-based communication. There is a need for ways
in which to express how the lecturer’s speech and the slide-text are integrated in order to
understand how slides might enhance rather than disturb lecture-based communication.
The common critique of slide-lectures paints a picture of lecturers systematically reading bullet-
point after bulletpoint, perhaps expanding some points along the way. Indeed, the very nature of
slidewares restricts the author to a linear, sequential progression of the lecture material (Kinchin,
Chadha, and Kokotailo 2008). Yet there are few existing frameworks that help us evaluate the extent to
which the lecturer’s speech identifies and addresses slide text in a particular pattern. The identification
of the specific item (e.g. bulletpoint) in question can be achieved with pointers, animation and other
non-speech forms of reference. These methods can provide an unmistakable cue about which slide
item is being spoken about, and therefore which part of the text to attend to at a particular time.
However, the usage of these is by no means consistent and reliable, and may depend upon the
lecturer’s physical position in relation to the slide display. Bucher and Niemann’s (2012) eye-tracking
studies reveal the importance of visual and verbal referential actions (both physically by pointing or
linguistically through speech): both can direct the audience’s attention to relevant information. Speech
forms a more significant component of lectures than physical pointing practices, and as such this
article considers the extent to which this integration is performed through the lecturer’s speech only.
Schnettler’s (2006) characterisation of presenters as either ‘orators’ or ‘performers’ comes
close to describing the integration of slide-text with speech in patterned terms; presenters
either simply verbalise the slide-text or they approach text and speech as material to be inter-
woven into a more considered performance. Yet description about how this is managed in
lectures is lacking. Despite much negative commentary about typical synchronisation practices,
there is little evidence relating to the extent to which systematic synchronisation of speech and
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 3

slide is achieved during lecturing. We shall focus on the interplay between speech and slide-text
during slide-lectures in order to illustrate the performance of lecture–slide mediation through
examining how far lecturers systematically mirror their slide-text in their speech. The research
questions guiding this study are as follows: to what extent do lecturers integrate slide-text in
their speech in a systematic manner and are there characteristic ways in which this integration
is achieved?

Materials and methods

Data collection took the form of a naturalistic video observation of 12 undergraduate psychology
lectures given across the UK during the academic year 2009/10. In a discipline that deals with a mix of
methods and representations, a single, iconic and introductory topic was sought for observation.
Attachment theory in developmental psychology was selected as it is typically covered using a well-
established expository pattern. Ethical approval was confirmed prior to carrying out data collection.
Rather than focus on a single institution – which may impose idiosyncratic lecturing practices
across its programmes – an opportunity sample was gathered from a mix of UK universities.
Lecturers in 18 psychology departments were approached and, of those, 12 fit the criteria of
teaching first-year attachment theory and were willing to participate.
Participants were given the option of either making a recording of their attachment theory
lecture using a small, portable video-recorder sent to them in the post or allowing a researcher to
visit and record the lecture using the same device. The video-recorder was sent to 11 participants
in advance of their lecture, together with instructions. The instructions requested that the recorder
be set up in a position that captured the main display screen or focal point in the lecture theatre,
along with the lecturer’s speech, but not necessarily including the lecturer themselves (unless
unavoidable). It was also required that students’ faces were not visible on the recording, and that
students were made aware of the recording prior to the start of the lecture. In one instance, the
researcher made the recording by positioning themselves at the front of the lecture theatre with
the recorder pointed at the display screen. In total, 12 lecture videos were collected from 12
different lecturers, each comprising a slide presentation accompanied by the lecturer’s speech.
All lectures were transcribed verbatim, with the exception of one that was excluded from the
analysis owing to the exceptionally poor quality of the recording. During the transcribing process,
slide transitions were used to split the speech into sections, such that each slide was displayed
side-by-side with the accompanying speech. Where a lecturer changed slides mid-sentence, that
sentence was divided between the slides at the point of transition. The slide-text was also
transcribed for ease of analysis.
It was noted that slides included many other types of representation: graphs, diagrams, photo-
graphs, images, numbers, formulae, videos, web links and dynamic diagrams. Of the 2095 distinct
slide-elements found on 413 slides, text-elements (in the form of bulletpoints, structural headings
and quotations) comprised 91.57% of the slide-elements (1923 of 2095 total slide-elements). The
next most prevalent representation was photographs (appearing 68 times; that is, 3.24% of the
total slide-elements), which are dealt with separately in Hallewell and Lackovic (2017). Table 1
describes the characteristics of the lectures.
To consider the integration of slide-text with speech, only the slides that contained these 1923
text-elements were selected for analysis. Thus, 336 out of 413 slides were analysed.

Results
Each individual text-element was labelled alphabetically according to the position in which it
appeared on the slide. It was assumed that slides are intended to be read from top-to-bottom
and left-to-right. For instance, Figure 1 shows an example of such reading along with the coding of
its four text-elements.
4 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

Table 1. Characteristics of the lectures.

No. No. of single text-elements in lecture % of text-elements used in relation to
Lecturer Length of lecture of (a bulletpoint, a single piece of struc- other elements (e.g. photographs, dia-
pseudonym (hr:min:sec) slides tural text/heading, a quote) grams, graphs)
Wright 00:55:10 42 209 96.3
Moss 00:35:03 24 115 84.5
Leaman 00:52:29 34 175 88.9
Vickers 01:22:33 43 292 97.1
Lake 00:51:57 21 83 93.3
Ealy 00:54:59 26 100 89.3
Jackson 00:39:39 22 52 72.2
Cooper 00:42:33 30 215 98.2
Kemp 01:04:59 70 289 97.0
Underwood 01:40:54 65 196 78.4
Horsley 01:13:44 36 197 96.6
Total: – 413 1923 –
Mean – 37.55 174.82 –
SD – 16.62 79.49 –

Figure 1. Example of coding of the expected order of slide-text.

Identification of the integration of slide-text with speech was carried out using a discourse
analysis (DA) framework (Coulthard 2014) that compared the semantic content of the speech
with the semantic content of the text. The identifiers of speech–text integration are described
in Table 2. This table is an expansion of Knoblauch’s (2008) ‘secondary pointing procedures’
(SPPs) in which speech points to text without the use of physical pointing methods. These
identifiers were selected from the limited frameworks available for analysing the communica-
tional practices of slide-lectures. Some identifiers were added to reflect the practices of
lectures specifically, as Knoblauch’s identifiers were developed from business presentations.
It should be noted that, although the observation of animation schemes would have been
possible for some lecturers, the inconsistency of their use rendered them unreliable as a
pointing procedure.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 5

Table 2. Identifiers of integration of text with speech based on Knoblauch’s (2008) SPPs.
Secondary pointing procedure Definition
Recognition markers and paralleling Spoken words that are also present in the slide-text (Knoblauch 2008, 87); for
whole sentences example, reading entire sentences from the slide or simply stating the significant
words present in the text.
Itemisations Providing there is more than one element present on the slide, the speech addresses
the structure of the slide and the pattern of the elements within. For instance,
when displaying a list, by saying ‘first’ the speaker points to the first text-element
and by saying ‘then’ they point to the next.
Direction and demonstratives The speech directly addresses the element such as ‘this notion’ or ‘these things’.
Reformulating the text/‘mangling’ Although the concepts are the same in speech and text, the speech can be so
different in structure and terminology that they are two separate entities that
provide the same semantic message.

Expected Slide-text Observed Speech

pattern
A Theories of attachment
B Mothers who responded
consistently and appropriately to
their infants’ bids for attention
C Mothers who often played with
their babies
D These mothers were closely
attached to their infants
pattern
None What’s more important is
that
B mothers or fathers respond
appropriately to the infant’s
needs,
C that they play with the
infants, when that happens,
D these mothers become
closely attached to their
infants.

Figure 2. Example of coding of one slide and speech excerpt.

Using these SPPs, the speech transcripts were scrutinised alongside the slide-text to establish
where integration occurred. The speech that integrated the text-element(s) was alphabetically
coded accordingly, such that the coding produced an ‘expected’ pattern (slide) and an ‘observed’
integration pattern (speech). Figure 2 is an example of such coding.
Where a lecturer integrated two text-elements, for instance by saying ‘these two points’, the
speech was coded with both associated letters alphabetically. Where the speech integrated more
than two text-elements, for instance by saying ‘this slide’, it was considered integration of the
whole slide and therefore was not coded.
Note that this analysis concerns only speech in which the slide-text was being addressed.
Speech that develops on the slide-text, explains and expands on it (in which case the speech is
related to the slide-text but is not immediately identifying the text to be attended to), house-
keeping interactions (‘can everybody hear me?’) and tangential speech was disregarded.
Although this kind of speech is relevant to the student’s general topic understanding, what is
important to this study is the extent to which the speech assists in the initial identification of
relevant slide-text.

Reliability of the SPPs

The SPPs were given to a colleague who coded a randomly selected 10% of the slides and their
associated speech for each lecturer. It was noted for each text-element whether both the
researcher and this colleague believed the speech was integrated with the slide-text (scoring 1)
6 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

or not integrated (scoring 0) with the speech for each coder. The specific SPP used was not noted.
Substantial agreement was found using the Kappa statistic to determine consistency amongst
coders: Kappa = 0.844 (p < 0.001). Thus, confidence was high that the process for judging
integration was reliable.

Expected versus observed pattern of integration

The ‘expected’ and ‘observed’ patterns represent the integration of the text-element on each slide
for comparison. For example, the expected pattern of the slide in Figure 2 would be A, B, C, D, but
the observed pattern was B, C, D. Figure 3 represents the ‘expected’ and ‘observed’ patterns for the
most consistently matching and least consistently matching lecturer.
The strings of letters representing the expected and observed patterns were converted into a
statistic, here referred to as an ‘integration score’, which expressed whether and how closely a
lecturer matched or did not match the pattern of their slides with their speech. Note that in
referring to ‘matching’ or ‘not matching’ the slide’s pattern, there is no implication that these
results directly support judgements on the pedagogical value of matching.

Scoring speech–slide integration

A statistical model was employed to represent the extent to which the observed pattern of
integration matched or deviated from the expected pattern. The strings of letters were compared
using a string-matching or edit-distance algorithm, such as those designed for spell-checking or
text-matching, and which can easily be adapted for different purposes such as for measuring errors
on text-entry tasks (Soukoreff and MacKenzie 2001).
The Levenshtein string distance statistic measures the ‘minimal number of insertions, deletions
and substitutions to make two strings equal’ (Navarro 2001, 37) where all ‘operations’, or differ-
ences between strings (for example, the word ‘Levenshtein’ versus the word ‘Lvenshfeins’), gain a
score of 1 (in the example, the deleted ‘e’, the substitution of the ‘t’ with ‘f’ and the insertion of an
‘s’ imply a score of 3). The higher the score, the more changes would need to be made to one
string to make it match the other. Although there would be no insertions, as the analysis focused
only on what existing text-elements were integrated rather than examining addition of material, it
was useful to be able to measure together ‘deletions’ (where a lecturer missed out a text-element
in their speech) and ‘substitutions’ (addressing text-elements out of order).
The slide provided the ‘expected’ string of letters against which the ‘observed’ string of the
lecturer’s speech integration was compared. These two strings were processed in a spreadsheet
containing a macro for the Levenshtein edit distance algorithm: each slide was thereby given a
Levenshtein distance score for comparison. For example, comparing the strings in Examples 1 and
2 in Table 3, there is a greater difference between the expected and observed strings in 1 than in 2.
In 1, the string was not repeated at all, meaning the Levenshtein distance equals the length of the
string (10). On the other hand, in 2, there is only one letter missing from the observed string,
meaning the distance between the two strings is 1.
This score alone does not take into account the respective length of the strings; there will be a
greater difference if one item is deleted from a short sequence than from a long sequence
(Ainsworth, Clarke, and Gaizauskas 2002). To account for length, Levenshtein distance scores

Table 3. Example of comparison of scaled Levenshtein string distances.

Example no. Expected string Observed string Levenshtein distance Scaled Levenshtein distance Similarity score
1 ABCDEFGHIJ 10 1 0.50
2 ABCD ABC 1 0.25 0.80
3 A 1 1 0.50
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 7

were scaled (divided) by the length of the expected string sequence (in Examples 1 and 2: 10 and 4,
respectively) to allow comparisons for the patterns on a 0–1 scale. In order to provide a more
meaningful statistic, this ‘similarity’ measure, which accounts for string length, was subjected to a
reordering of the scores to provide a 0–1 scale, where 1 represents an exact match and 0
represents infinite difference. This was achieved by adding 1 to the scaled Levenshtein score and
then dividing 1 by this sum. The formula for the similarity measure is as follows:

Similarity ¼ 1=ð1 þ distÞ:

It should be noted that absolute zero is impossible here, as to receive zero, the scaled Levenshtein
distance needs to be above 1. This score is only achievable if there are different letters added to the
observed string: for example, adding KLMN to Example 2. This would not represent integration of
the existing slide-text; rather, it would represent the addition of slide-text in the speech. This is
impossible in the present case because, although a lecturer can add speech that is not related to
the slide-text, such as explaining, introducing or tangential speech, there is no associated slide-text
to reference.
The lowest similarity score received for any of the slides was 0.33 and the highest was 1. Mean
scores were calculated for all of the slides for each lecture to give an integration score in ascending
order, as shown in Table 4. It was considered that the closer to 1 the mean, the more systematic the
lecturer was in their integration.
A one-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA; e.g. Lazaraton 2002) was applied to the similarity
scores for each slide of each lecture to test for differences between the lecturers in the extent to
which their observed patterns matched their expected patterns, using the individual slides as the
population and the lecturer as the factor. Lecturers differed significantly from each other in the
similarity of the pattern of speech to the slide-text: F(10, 364) = 3.801, p = < 0.001.

Considering the lecturer’s relationship with the slide

The next analytical step was to describe qualitative differences in slide-lecture practice. Schnettler
(2006) identified two activities by which a presentation can be orchestrated: ‘translating’ (decipher-
ing the slide-text) and ‘conducting attention’ (directing attention to particular elements). It was
noted during the analysis of integrations that there were other practices not covered by these two
categories: the lecturer contradicting the slide-text or highlighting why it was important. In order
to consider whether the speech might reveal anything about the lecturers’ relationship with their
slides, a qualitative DA approach was taken. This involved analysing examples of integration and
the speech surrounding integrations, focusing on what the lecturer appeared to be doing with
their integration of text.

Table 4. Integration scores for each lecturer.

Lecturer pseudonym Integration score SD (of mean similarity score)
Leaman 0.69 0.16
Wright 0.71 0.13
Vickers 0.71 0.15
Cooper 0.72 0.13
Kemp 0.76 0.14
Underwood 0.78 0.21
Horsley 0.79 0.14
Ealy 0.80 0.15
Moss 0.80 0.20
Lake 0.86 0.18
Jackson 0.89 0.17
8 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

Caricatures of the slide-lecture

The analysis focused on the actions that the speech performed in relation to the slide-text, using
Schnettler’s (2006) activities as a starting point, thus the extent to which the speech ‘translated’ or
‘conducted attention’ was identified. This analysis was also intended to uncover any further
activities that were carried out by the speech in relation to the slide-text. The highest- and
lowest-scoring lecturers were treated as the two extremes in approaches to slide integration.
Here, we considered the two lecturers who were quantitatively different in their approach to
integration to consider what the qualitative differences between them might be.
Jackson had the highest integration score: he integrated his slide-text most consistently. This
consistency might imply that his approach was closest to the ‘reading off the slide’ practice, or to
Schnettler’s ‘performer’ approach. Indeed, on closer inspection, this was often the case; for
instance, the slide in Figure 4 shows very close matches between the speech and slide-text. This
is particularly evident in his integration of elements E, F and G.
It appears that the elements are being spoken about, rather than that the text is somehow being
performed. For instance, where the speech first integrates slide-element E, the lecturer says, ‘and
here’s some fairly obvious basic facts about it’, which provides a context for the following speech:
he will be reading out these obvious and basic facts. Such an act might be considered to be
conducting attention to the slide-element, using a directive to identify that the text will be
integrated. Yet he wanted to do so in order to classify the information as being ‘obvious’ and
‘basic’. However, once the slide-text is read out, or verbalised, he follows it by questioning the text
using information previously learned. He says, ‘now we’ve got something else, well hold on a
minute’, before verbalising the slide-text again, which suggests to the audience that what is written
on the slide is questionable in some way. He follows this with suggesting that if we attempt to pick
it apart it is rather difficult. The lecturer is almost disagreeing with the slide-text, or else pointing
out that, although such a point has been made, it does not necessarily mean that it is a simple fact
to be digested. Rather, students should be considering it in light of what they learned in the last
lecture.
Jackson includes some degree of translation into the speech, i.e. in explaining the text or
otherwise deciphering it for the audience. For instance, where he integrates element C, he
follows with a translation, ‘so, you know. . .’. Mostly, the lecturer seems to signal that the text is
self-explanatory, and as such he is not using the text-element as an object that needs to be
explained to students. Rather, his relationship with the slide appears to be based on his
indicating or referring to specific elements in order to assess them. There were many further
examples of this lecturer talking about the slide-text in such a way, for example (instances of
integration are in italic):
Here’s some features of it I think are worth just reminding you about. Attachments are not just to anyone. Now
we notice that, he’s saying that but remember at the very beginning you get this social responsiveness for the
first couple of months, but that’s not attachment. They are selective, focused on specific individuals who elicit
attachment behaviour in a manner, form and extent that is not found in the child’s interactions with other people.
I know what it means because my mother can still really get to me. Ha-ha, I shouldn’t admit that, should I?
Attachments provide comfort and security, the outcomes of being close to the attachment object. That’s fair
enough.

Before reading out the list of features that appear on the slide the lecturer notes that he thinks
these features are important to remember. In this way, the lecturer might be signalling the
importance of the slide-text to the general thesis of the lecture. The lecturer follows the reading
of the first item on the list by linking back to what was previously learned to help explain or
translate the statement; that responsiveness in attachment is more than just general social
responsiveness. It is noted that later the lecturer agrees with the text: ‘that’s fair enough’.
Although this lecturer most consistently addresses his slide-text, he does so predominantly to
question or provide an assessment of it. The lecturer does not use his slide-text as a script to tell
him what to talk about; rather, he uses it as an artefact of reference. This ‘referring’ style is
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 9

particularly salient when compared with the practices of the lowest-scoring lecturer in terms of
integration, Leaman, who did not regularly assess the slide-text. Instead, the slide-text is more
subtly woven into her speech. An illustration of this is provided in Figure 5. Here, if the speech were
read alone, it might be impossible to tell that there was text on the slide at the time.
The boundaries between slide-text elements in the speech are less marked, as evidenced by the
first speech-sentence. Element A is merged together with B in the same speech-sentence. This
merging is also evident in her integration of elements B and C. Here, she skips the majority of the
text to merge the two phrases written in italics on the slide – ‘Safe haven’ and ‘Safe base’ – before
going on to define or translate these phrases separately afterwards: ‘so safe haven behaviours
are. . .’. Here, the lecturer is stating the concept before explaining it, such that the students need
not see the concepts on the slide. What is more evident here is the extent of translation of the
slide-text being carried out, as much of the slide-text is explained in other terms without explicitly
referring to it. Also, the lecturer appears to make more of an effort to combine the speech and text
into a single story, compared to Jackson’s approach which served to separate them. This is clear in
the extract below in which the lecturer more subtly integrates the words appearing on the screen
(slide-text integrations are shown in italic):

Now when we talk about attachment, often people know what we mean when we talk about parent–child
attachments or child–parent attachments. And most of this work is based on how the infant expresses emotion
and how the caregiver responds to that emotion. So what we need to think about is when we’re looking at
parental and child interactions and we’re looking at this dyad interacting together, how do we conceptualise
what the attachment is? This bond between parents and their children, how do we conceptualise it?

The slide-text is woven into the lecturer’s sentence, serving to convert the text from solitary
phrases to a more articulate narrative. The lecturer adds some information to the narrative as an
extended translation. Overall, this lecturer seems to be using the slide-text as some form of flexible
scaffold for the lecture, in which the text is not assessed but, rather, becomes a part of the speech.
Further, the role of the speech as a translator of the slide-text is more obvious.

Functions of the speech–slide-text relationship

Through considering the practices of both the most and the least integrative lecturers, it is
proposed that there are two functions of the speech–slide-text relationship in slide-lectures:

(1) The referent function, characterised by the lecturer providing an assessment of the slide-text.
(2) The scaffolding function, characterised by the lecturer’s speech blending and translating the
slide-text within the spoken narrative.

The described analysis was carried out on the remainder of the slides for each of the two lecturers
to consider the extent to which the lecturers display characteristics of one kind of relationship over
another. The speech acts were separated into the two relationships that they appear to indicate,
and instances in which they occurred were recorded throughout the whole lecture transcript. Here,
‘conducting attention’, ‘questioning’, ‘agreeing/disagreeing’ and ‘signalling importance’ were con-
sidered as acts used when a lecturer refers to their slide-elements, as they serve to separate speech
from slide as two distinct aspects of the presentation. Verbalising also fits here, as it was considered
that, in verbalising the text, the lecturer draws attention to the text on the slide, which again
highlights the distinctness of speech and slide. ‘Merging’, ‘translating’ and ‘combining’ are con-
sidered to be aligned with the scaffolding relationship, as these serve to combine the speech and
slide information into a single message: the speech and slide-text are not identified as distinct
messages. This analysis is detailed in Table 5.
A χ2 analysis was carried out to compare the total number of speech acts within each relation-
ship type that the lecturers produced. The difference in relationship indicators between lecturers
10 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

Table 5. Quantifying the extent of the ‘referent’ and ‘scaffolding’ relationships.

Jackson Leaman
Relationship % of occur- Total % for % of occur- Total % for
alignment Speech act Count rences (88) relationship Count rences (203) relationship
Referent Conducting attention 13 14.77 70.45 17 8.37 21.67
Questioning 2 2.27 1 0.49
Agree/disagree 6 6.82 1 0.49
Signal importance 6 6.82 1 0.49
Verbalising 35 39.77 24 11.82
Scaffolding Merging 1 1.14 29.55 27 13.30 78.33
Translating 9 10.23 39 19.21
Combining 16 18.18 93 45.81

was significant: χ2 (df: 1, n = 291) = 63.08, p < 0.001. It was concluded that the lecturers differed
significantly in terms of the relationship indicators they employed in their lectures.

Reliability of the indicators

The indicators were checked for reliability by employing a colleague who was given two slide
examples from each of the two lecturers (approximately 10% of the total number of slides), along
with descriptions of the speech acts. The coder was asked to identify whether the speech acts were
present in the examples and how frequently they occurred. This information was then compared
with the same coding performed by the authors. It should be noted that the second coder was
given the entire slide–speech transcript for the slides, yet the examples above are clipped.
Inter-rater reliability, using the Kappa statistic to determine consistency amongst the two
coders, was found to be in substantial agreement: Kappa = 0.846 (p < 0.001). There was a high
level of agreement that the same speech acts were being carried out for the four slides above.

Jackson Leaman
Expected pattern Observed pattern Expected pattern Observed pattern
(slide) (speech) (slide) (speech)

Figure 3. Visualisations of the extent of matching between speech and slide-text of the most and least consistently-matching
lecturers.
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 11

Expected Slide-text Observed Speech

pattern
A Bowlby (1969-1980) ‘Child care and the growth of love’
B Major influences:
C Psychoanalysis
D Ethology
E Young child is ‘biologically biased’ to develop
attachments to its caregivers given its genetic endowment.
F Biological function of attachment is protection of the
young
G Psychological function of attachment is to provide security
pattern
A …Now John Bowlby came along and he wrote this book,
which at the time caused a lot of controversy,
None at that time because it was saying: hold on a minute, there could
be a real problem here with mothers going to work. And the
problem is to do with this business of attachment. So he caused
a lot of trouble and he wasn’t very popular. But it was a very
controversial book at that time.
B His major influences on this,
None on his writing, which really, he was really the first person in
psychology, apart from Freud of course much earlier, to really
begin to pull out the significance of this relationship and he did
for two reasons,

C one a lot of his ideas came from psychoanalysis,

D but also from another branch of the natural sciences called

ethology.

E And OK, here’s some fairly obvious basic ideas about it, a
young child is biologically biased to develop attachment to
its caregivers given its genetic endowment.

None Now we noticed last week when I was talking about infancy, the
curious business about imitation which looks as if maybe it just
has to be something that’s built in, and now we’ve got
something else, well, hold on a minute,

E biologically biased to develop attachments to its caregivers,

None well, in an obvious way it might make sense, but teasing apart
actually

E what that means, what the implications of that are actually,

None is more difficult.

F Now the second point I wanted to make was this whole

business of the function is simply the protection of the
young.

None Right, it looks like a fairly, is it therefore he was asking, a kind

of automatic phenomena

G And the function of it psychologically is to provide security.

Figure 4. Example of a highly integrated slide by Jackson.

Discussion
This study quantified and described lecturers’ differing relationships with their slides. Simply
looking at the ‘observed’ patterns side-by-side in Figure 3 gives an idea of the difference in
approach to integration between two lecturers. Moreover, this inconsistency of approach varies
across a considerable range – from the most consistent and systematic lecturer, Jackson, who
received an integration score of 0.89, to Leaman, who received an integration score of 0.69 –
indicating significantly differing levels of deviation from the slide pattern with their speech.
However, the way in which lecturers integrated text was also characteristically different.
It was identified that there are two relationship styles that were employed by the highest- and
lowest-scoring lecturers in terms of integration: referent and scaffolding. Here slide-text is treated as
either an object to comment on or is blended into the speech. Jackson employed indicators of a
referent relationship in 70.45% instances of integration throughout the lecture, whereas Leaman
employed them in 21.67% of instances of integration. On the other hand, Jackson employed
indicators of a scaffolding relationship in 29.55% of instances of integration, whereas Leaman
employed them in 78.33% of instances of integration. It may be suggested, then, that a lecturer
who employs a referent relationship might be more concerned with systematically addressing each
12 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

Expected Slide Observed Speech

pattern pattern
A JOHN BOWLBY A Bowlby

B Predisposition to maintain proximity to caregiver,
and behave in ways that attract their attention and
engage their involvement – safe haven
C Also predisposition to explore the world around
them – use caregiver as a safe base
None suggested that young people have
B a predisposition to maintain proximity to a
caregiver, and this is the heart of attachment this is
what attachment is about, it’s about maintaining
proximity.

None It’s about staying close to somebody who’s going to

look after you because of course: infancy is a very
dangerous experience. If you’re helpless you can’t feed
yourself, you can’t clothe yourself, you need someone
else to look after you.

B You have to elicit care from somebody else

None if you can’t do it yourself. So this is what attachment is

all about. And it’s what attachment is all about all the
way through life as well. So this idea about felt
security,

B about keeping somebody close, that’s what

attachment is about.

C And Bowlby talked about safe haven behaviours

B and safe base, secure base behaviours. So safe haven

behaviours are this predisposition to maintain
proximity to the caregiver, behaviours that attract
the attention of the caregiver, and engage their
involvement...

Figure 5. Example of a slide by Leaman.

element on the slide in the expected order, whereas the lecturer employing a scaffolding relation-
ship might be less concerned with such following of the slide-text.
It must be noted that, although the two lecturers showed significant preferences for different
approaches, they did not consistently display characteristics of only one relationship. Thus the
function of slide-text might vary both between and within slide-lectures, and might depend heavily
on how the lecturer intends to use each text-element. As a consequence, the lecturers’ relationship
with their slides is not immediately evident, thus further empirical examination of these relation-
ships is needed to ascertain their relative impacts on the learning environment.
The proposed referent and scaffolding relationships appear to be reflected in literature com-
menting on PowerPoint practice, yet it seems that most often it is the scaffolding relationship that
is described. For instance, Adams (2006) identifies the role of slides as being where the lecture
resides: the information contained is elaborated by the lecturer through their verbal exposition.
Further, Maxwell’s (2007) critical account of the prevailing role of PowerPoint is that it provides a
summary for the lecture, which is repeated by the lecturer’s speech. Yet, as our analysis has
identified, this predictable level of integration is not always the case within the scaffolding
relationship, and often the integration is much more intricate.
In terms of the referent relationship, there is comparatively less commentary on its use.
Rather, the literature that discusses this kind of relationship often calls for more lecturers to
adopt it in preference to the scaffolding relationship, suggesting that it is a less common
strategy. For example, Maxwell (2007) argues that the role of the slideshow is an artefact to
be commented and elaborated upon. Others focus on the adoption of multimedia design
principles; that is, a succinct headline, along with visual evidence for that headline (Alley and
Neeley 2005; Johnson and Christensen 2011; Nagmoti 2017). Pate and Posey (2016) revealed
that slides designed following multimedia principles (i.e. images with labels) contributed to the
superior performance and satisfaction of students to a greater degree than traditional text-
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 13

based slides. Here, the lecturer shows visual evidence for their arguments, rather than text
summaries of their lecture. It must be noted that the suggested lecturing model in these and
similar studies (e.g. Ari et al. 2014; de Koning, van Hooijdonk, and Lagerwerf 2017; Schüler,
Scheiter, and Gerjets 2013) calls for greatly reduced levels of slide-text compared to the slides
examined in the current study.
Although the data were collected during the 2009/10 academic year, it is highly likely that the
results are applicable to lectures today owing to the significant ‘constraining qualities’ of
PowerPoint/slideware (Kernbach, Bresciani, and Eppler 2015) that potentially force lecturers into
the kinds of relationship discussed here. The constraining qualities that Kernbach et al. describe –
‘bulleting’, ‘sequencing’, ‘monotonous ritualizing’, ‘reading slide text aloud’ – speak of similar
concepts to the relationship indicators employed in this article. Although lecture practices are
gradually shifting towards more active teaching methods, for example the flipped classroom (e.g.
Bergmann and Sams 2012) or ‘active lectures’ (e.g. Pickering and Roberts 2018), which may make
less use of the slide-lecture format, slide-lecture components are still a predominant feature of
instructional messages that may accompany these approaches. Students may be asked to watch
recorded slide-lectures online within the flipped classroom approach. As Kernbach et al.’s (2015)
constraining qualities are embedded in the software, it is likely that a lecturer’s integration
approach will be driven to one of the relationships whenever there is text on screen, even if the
text-lecture is significantly reduced.
There are many integration options open to lecturers when conducting slide-text lectures and
their integration choices might depend on personal preferences, familiarity with the subject and
attitudes and beliefs regarding lecture pedagogy. Furthermore, their academic discipline might
carry its own idiosyncrasies regarding the kinds of information displayed on their PowerPoint
screens (Garrett 2016), which might influence the ways in which slide-text is spoken about.
Indeed, the cultural studies lectures discussed by Zhao and van Leeuwen (2014) appear to adopt
the referent approach as standard. Cultural studies, as described by Zhao and van Leeuwen, is a
discipline in which students are invited to engage with the ideas presented, using images and
other modalities as triggers for a personally meaningful experience, compared to the ‘lecturer-
explaining-concepts’ model typical of psychology lectures. This is reflected in the proportion of
Zhao and van Leeuwen’s seven lectures’ worth of slides that were image- rather than text-based
(of 268 slides, only 24.25% were exclusively text-based; in this article, 91.57% of slide-elements
were textual). It is important to note that slides are conceptualised by Zhao and van Leeuwen as
semiotic resources that enable knowledge to be recontextualised in the classroom. In other words,
in cultural studies classrooms slides do not just convey information, they transform meanings. This
practice is more suggestive of our referent relationship.

Conclusions
Whichever relationship the lecturer has with their slide-text, it should be acknowledged that live
slide-lectures represent an unpredictable sub-type of multimedia instruction. This unpredict-
ability might result in a potentially fraught situation when the speech and slide are not
integrated as expected, i.e. what the lecturer is saying is not related to the expected text-
element on screen. Rowley-Jolivet (2002) describes the audience’s task during a slide-presenta-
tion as a difficult one when characterised using Mayer et al.’s notions of dual processing and
cognitive load (e.g. Mayer 2005; Mayer and Moreno 1998, 2003; Mayer et al. 1999). Rowley-
Jolivet suggests that the speaker must follow, or ‘synchronise’, their verbal commentary with the
slides, whilst the audience must negotiate both the slide content and the synchronisation of it
by detecting and processing the ‘linear progression and semiotic mix imposed by the speaker’
(2002, 21). Applied to a slide-lecture, the student expects the lecturer to systematically address
the slide-text. Those who expect that the lecturer will do so in order to expand on the slide-text
could easily be confused by a lecturer who uses the referent approach. Similarly, those who are
14 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

seeking an appraisal of the information on screen might be frustrated by a scaffolding

approach. Lecturers who are consistent in their integration of slide-text might go some way
towards making slide-lectures easier to follow. Yet it remains unclear which kind of relationship
(referent versus scaffolding) is better for learning. Either way, it seems that copious amounts of
slide-text might be problematic.
We suggest that further research should examine how learning might be influenced by different
types of speech-slide relationship by, for example, examining student reflections on the different
relationships. It would be useful to examine how student attention can be optimally managed in a
slide-lecture, and whether particular integration practices can facilitate this management. An
investigation into the extent to which lecturers employ the slide-lecture approach for entire
sessions or as part of a range of approaches during a session would provide useful insights into
how much lecture time a student employs in attempts to synchronise speech and slide-text.
Arguably, there is a need for some consensus, discipline or guidance in relation to the practices
of coordinating speech and slide-text.

Acknowledgments
Thank you to Dr Matthew Inglis of Loughborough University for assisting with the selection and application of the
Levensthein statistic and similarity score.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

Notes on contributors
Madeline J. Hallewell, PhD, is currently a Research Fellow in Human Factors at the University of Nottingham, where
she also completed her PhD in Education in 2013. She has a background in teaching in UK secondary, further and
tertiary education contexts where she has taught social science topics. She is a mixed-methods researcher, and her
research interests centre on how humans interact with their environments, and how this interaction can affect their
learning, wellbeing and performance. She is particularly interested in social semiotics and reactions to multimedia
learning and multimodal environments. Her most recent research produced user requirements for and evaluations of
digital games to teach hearing aid users about the advanced functionalities of their hearing aid. Future work will
involve the development of dynamic lighting systems for crowd control and the reduction of trespass and suicides in
train stations and level crossings.
Charles Crook is a Professor of ICT and Education. He is a member of the Learning Sciences Research Institute at
Nottingham and is a developmental psychologist by background. After research at Cambridge, Brown and Strathclyde
universities, he lectured in Psychology at Durham University and was Reader in Psychology at Loughborough
University. Much of this work involves new technology. He was a founder member of the European Society for
Developmental Psychology and was long-time editor of the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.

ORCID
Madeline J. Hallewell http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2710-2176
Charles Crook http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2793-9793
 JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION 15

References
Adams, C. 2006. “PowerPoint, Habits of Mind, and Classroom Culture.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 38: 389–411.
doi:10.1080/00220270600579141.
Ainsworth, S. 2006. “DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for considering Learning with Multiple Representations.” Learning
and Instruction 16: 183–198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.
Ainsworth, S., D. Clarke, and R. Gaizauskas. 2002. “Using Edit Distance Algorithms to Compare Alternative Approaches
to ITS Authoring.” In Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, edited by Cerri S. A,
Gouardères G, Paraguaçu F, 2363: 873–882. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Alley, M., and K. A. Neeley. 2005. “Rethinking the Design of Presentation Slides: A Case for Sentence Headlines and
Visual Evidence.” Technical Communication 52: 417–426.
Ari, F., R. Flores, F. A. Inan, J. Cheon, S. M. Crooks, D. Paniukov, and M. Kurucay. 2014. “The Effects of Verbally
Redundant Information on Student Learning: An Instance of Reverse Redundancy.” Computers & Education 76: 199–
204. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.002.
Bergmann, J., and A. Sams. 2012. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. USA: International
society for technology in education.
Bucher, H.-J., and P. Niemann. 2012. “Visualizing Science: The Reception of Powerpoint Presentations.” Visual
Communication 11: 283–306. doi:10.1177/1470357212446409.
Coulthard, M. 2014. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Oxon: Routledge.
de Koning, B. B., C. M. J. van Hooijdonk, and L. Lagerwerf. 2017. “Verbal Redundancy in a Procedural Animation: On-
Screen Labels Improve Retention but Not Behavioral Performance.” Computers & Education 107: 45–53. doi:10.1016/
j.compedu.2016.12.013.
Gabriel, Y. 2008. “Against the Tyranny of PowerPoint: Technology-In-Use and Technology Abuse.” Organization Studies
29: 255. doi:10.1177/0170840607079536.
Garrett, N. 2016. “How Do Academic Disciplines Use PowerPoint?” Innovative Higher Education 41: 365–380.
doi:10.1007/s10755-016-9381-8.
Gourlay, L. 2012. “Cyborg Ontologies and the Lecturer’s Voice: A Posthuman Reading of the ‘Face-To-Face’.” Learning,
Media and Technology 37: 198–211. doi:10.1080/17439884.2012.671773.
Hallewell, M. J., and N. Lackovic. 2017. “Do Pictures ‘Tell’a Thousand Words in Lectures? How Lecturers Vocalise
Photographs in Their Presentations.” Higher Education Research & Development 36(6): 1–15.
Jewitt, C. 2009. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.
Johnson, D. A., and J. Christensen. 2011. “A Comparison of Simplified-Visually Rich and Traditional Presentation Styles.”
Teaching of Psychology 38: 293–297. doi:10.1177/0098628311421333.
Kernbach, S., S. Bresciani, and M. J. Eppler. 2015. “Slip-Sliding-Away: A Review of the Literature on the Constraining
Qualities of PowerPoint.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 78: 292–313. doi:10.1177/
2329490615595499.
Kinchin, I. M., D. Chadha, and P. Kokotailo. 2008. “Using PowerPoint as a Lens to Focus on Linearity in Teaching.”
Journal of Further and Higher Education 32: 333–346. doi:10.1080/03098770802392923.
Knight, M. 2015. “The Ubiquitousness of PowerPoint.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly 78: 271–272.
doi:10.1177/2329490615600840.
Knoblauch, H. 2008. “The Performance of Knowledge: Pointing and Knowledge in Powerpoint Presentations.” Cultural
Sociology 2: 75–97. doi:10.1177/1749975507086275.
Lazaraton, A. 2002. “Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Discourse Analysis.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 22: 32. doi:10.1017/S0267190502000028.
Mann, S., and A. Robinson. 2009. “Boredom in the Lecture Theatre: An Investigation into the Contributors, Moderators
and Outcomes of Boredom Amongst University Students.” British Educational Research Journal 35: 243–258.
doi:10.1080/01411920802042911.
Maxwell, A. 2007. “Ban the Bullet-Point! Content-Based PowerPoint for Historians.” The History Teacher 41: 39–54.
Mayer, R. E. 2001. Multi Media Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. 2005. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., and R. Moreno. 1998. “A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing
Systems in Working Memory.” Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 312–320. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312.
Mayer, R. E., and R. Moreno. 2003. “Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning.” Educational
Psychologist 38: 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.
Mayer, R. E., R. Moreno, M. Boire, and S. Vagge. 1999. “Maximizing Constructivist Learning from Multimedia
Communications by Minimizing Cognitive Load.” Journal of Educational Psychology 91: 638–643. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.91.4.638.
Nagmoti, J. 2017. “Departing from PowerPoint Default Mode: Applying Mayer’s Multimedia Principles for Enhanced
Learning of Parasitology.” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 35: 199–203. doi:10.4103/ijmm.IJMM_16_251.
Navarro, G. 2001. “A Guided Tour to Approximate String Matching.” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 33: 31–88.
doi:10.1145/375360.375365.
16 M. J. HALLEWELL AND C. CROOK

Nowak, M. K., E. Speakman, and P. Sayers. 2016. “Evaluating PowerPoint Presentations: A Retrospective Study
Examining Educational Barriers and Strategies.” Nursing Education Perspectives 37: 28–31.
Pate, A., and S. Posey. 2016. “Effects of Applying Multimedia Design Principles in PowerPoint Lecture Redesign.”
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 8: 235–239. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2015.12.014.
Pickering, J. D., and D. J. H. Roberts. 2018. “Flipped Classroom or an Active Lecture?” Clinical Anatomy (New York, N.Y.)
31: 118–121. doi:10.1002/ca.22983.
Pozzer-Ardenghi, L. 2007. “Look at What I Am Saying”: Multimodal Science Teaching.” In Dept. Of Curriculum and
Instruction. British Columbia: University of Victoria.
Rowley-Jolivet, E. 2002. “Visual Discourse in Scientific Conference Papers A Genre-Based Study.” English for Specific
Purposes 21: 19–40. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(00)00024-7.
Schnettler, B. 2006. “Orchestrating Bullet Lists and Commentaries. A Video Performance Analysis of Computer
Supported Presentations.” In Video Analysis edited by Knoblauch, H, Schnettler, B, Raab, J, 155–168. Frankfurt
and New York: Lang.
Schüler, A., K. Scheiter, and P. Gerjets. 2013. “Is Spoken Text Always Better? Investigating the Modality and
Redundancy Effect with Longer Text Presentation.” Computers in Human Behavior 29: 1590–1601. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2013.01.047.
Smith-Shank, D L. 2010. Semiotic Pedagogy and Visual Culture Curriculum. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
Soukoreff, R. W., and I. S. MacKenzie. 2001. “Measuring Errors in Text Entry Tasks: An Application of the Levenshtein
String Distance Statistic.” In CHI ‘01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 319–320. Seattle,
Washington: ACM.
Young, J. R. 2004. “When Good Technology Means Bad Teaching: Giving Professors Gadgets without Training Can Do
More Harm than Good in the Classroom, Students Say.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 51: 12.
Zhao, S., and T. van Leeuwen. 2014. “Understanding Semiotic Technology in University Classrooms: A Social Semiotic
Approach to PowerPoint-assisted Cultural Studies Lectures.” Classroom Discourse 5: 71–90. doi:10.1080/
19463014.2013.859848.